We know you missed it. So, no jibber jabber: here’s the thing.
WELCOME BACK! This is Austin from Texas’ Fantasy SCOTUS League.
Posted: November 1, 2019 by Nazim in Fantasy Supreme Court League0
Final 2018 Term Scores for Austin from Texas’ Fantasy SCOTUS League.
Posted: August 19, 2019 by Nazim in Fantasy Supreme Court LeagueWe’ve all been waiting for this with baited breath. We know. We’re professional breath-baiters. So, with precisely this much ado, and then this much more, here you go:
The winner, by a margin of 70 points, is Alyssa, who single-handedly proves that NJ judicial fantasialogisticians have everything we need to understand what’s right and wrong about the world. Kudos to Alyssa: if she keeps this up, maybe we’ll rename the league after her. Or, you know, if she purchases a sponsoring deal. We’ll take interesting food. No, seriously, you know we will.
One note, of the almost-dozen people who posted submissions twice, only one scored better the second time. The clear lesson here is to not overthink what we’re doing. Including this commentary. See you all next season.
Austin from Texas’ SCOTUS Fantasy League – May 2019 ballot
Posted: May 1, 2019 by Nazim in Fantasy Supreme Court League
It’s that time of the month, again, thank good. Get yourself sorted on our fresh (and abundant) batch of cases that may have some easy outcomes to determine. See? We can play nice when we feel like it, just like Rocky Racoon.
If you have no idea what this is, please click to our somewhat-more-helpful page (trademark pending). In brief, you guess what US Supreme Court justices might do, and compare your guesswork to others. If you guess best, we recognize you somehow. It’s all very specific.
This week’s episode covers the Freedom of Information Act, and how the Court will look at the pending case of Food Market Institute v. Argus Leader Media, which asks whether or not customer information is “confidential” to bar disclosure under FOIA laws. In the general theme of secrecy, Brett and Nazim share closely held secrets, like who likes Game of Thrones more, and who drinks Mountain Dew. Law starts at (07:55).
[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/9448877/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!
Look out drunks, because Wisconsin is coming for your blood. This week’s episode covers the case of Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which asks whether the police can take the blood of a passed out drunk driver without a warrant. Brett and Nazim discuss oral argument in general, previous cases on this topic and which opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is the lesser-est of three evils. Law starts at (06:05).
[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/9335924/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!
This week’s case covers Kisor v. Wlkie, which specifically questions whether or not Supreme Court precedent that defers to agency interpretations of their own regulations is Constitutional. This case covers admin law in general, when a Court should overturn precedent, and whether or not the Constitution permits delegating such power to un-elected officials. Now, just in case that sounds too serious, the words “The Farts Doctrine” comes up more than once. Law starts at (03:49).
[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/9292778/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!
Austin from Texas’ SCOTUS Fantasy League – April 2019
Posted: April 1, 2019 by Nazim in Fantasy Supreme Court League
I always wonder, when I title these things, if it won’t turn up in some adolescent’s search for prurient material about something he or she misspelled. I know it does for me, and it’s annoying.
But, if you’re reading this second paragraph, you’re probably mildly interested in the link to cast your ballot. Because I know we’re getting close to the finish line, and I know I need to get to scoring this thing, and that laundry isn’t going to do itself. So, if anyone wants to do my laundry, please let me know. My wife says I have an unnecessarily rigorous t-shirt folding process, and I’m looking for a biased second opinion.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you’re in good company. But if you want to know more about the SCOTUS Fantasy League, click that link. If you just want to vote in this ballot, click this link.
Brett and Nazim have gone big-time, as this week’s episode covers Flowers v. Mississippi, a criminal Batson challenge case that’s far more famous for being ripe for podcast commentary. In place of ephemeral music and gotcha journalism, Brett and Nazim talk about the criminal justice system, Batson challenges, jury selection, and Clarence Thomas talking at oral argument. Law starts at (06:32).
[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/9150875/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!
Hold on to your butts gang, cuz Brett and Nazim are talking THE WALL! By way of background, Brett is sick with Kathleen Turner voice and Nazim has one foot on the door with busy weekend plans, so this episode is general coverage about whatever the hell is going on with the government these days, and then a quick and dirty look at Iancu v. Brunetti, which covers free speech and the trademark office…..again. (Law starts at 04:45).
[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/9095192/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!
AKA THIS AGAIN. This week’s episode takes a dive into the last four years of gerrymandering cases to suss out what the Court is talking about in the current cases of Virginia v. Bethune-Hill (2019), Lamone v. Benisk, and Rucho v. Common Cause. Come for the nuanced political discussion, stay to hear how beaten-down Nazim is on this issue compared to four years ago. Law starts at (07:20).
[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/9008534/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!
